the one who benefits from his testimony and draws a benefit to himself through it, such as the testimony of creditors for an insolvent person regarding a debt or a physical object, and their testimony for a deceased person regarding a debt or wealth. For if a debt or wealth were established for the insolvent or the deceased, their rights would be attached to it. This differs from the case where creditors testify for a living person who is not under interdiction regarding wealth, for their testimony is accepted because their right is not attached to his wealth, but rather to his personal liability. If it is said: If he is insolvent, the demand is dropped from him, so if they testify for him regarding wealth, they gain the ability to demand it, and thus they have drawn a benefit to themselves. We say: The demand is not established by their testimony; rather, it is established by his solvency and his admission of the claim (9) of the right for which they testified. The testimony of an heir for the one he inherits from regarding a wound before it heals is not accepted, because the wound might spread to his own person, and thus the blood money (diyah) would become obligatory for them by their own testimony. Nor is the testimony of a pre-emptor (shafi') regarding the sale of a portion of land in which he has a right of pre-emption accepted. Nor is the testimony of a master for his slave who is authorized in trade, nor for his mukatab (slave under a contract of manumission). The Qadi said: The testimony of a hired worker for the one who hired him is not accepted. And he said: Ahmad stated this. If it is said: Why then have you accepted the testimony of an heir for the one he inherits from, even though if he dies he will inherit from him, and thus he has drawn a benefit to himself through his testimony? We say: He has no right to his wealth at the time of the testimony, and it only potentially happens that a right will be renewed for him. This prevents the acceptance of testimony, just as if he testified for a woman he might potentially marry, or for a debtor of his regarding wealth he might potentially have repaid to him, or he might become insolvent and his right would attach to it. Rather, the barrier is what is obtained by the witness (10) as a benefit at the time of the testimony. If it is said: You have indeed forbidden the acceptance of his testimony for the one he inherits from regarding a wound before it heals, because of the possibility that a right might be renewed for him, [even if he has no right] (11) at the moment, so if you say: the cause of his right has indeed been established. We say: This is invalidated by the one who testifies for the one he inherits from who is sick regarding a right, for his testimony is accepted even though the cause of his entitlement has been established, as evidenced by the fact that his gift to him (13) is not valid, while his gift to someone else is suspended based on it coming out of the one-third. We say: We only prohibited the testimony for the one he inherits from (14) regarding a wound because it might lead to death, in which case the blood money would be obligatory for the heir who testified for it from the outset, thus he would be testifying for himself.